Avoid making same arguments sports teams use to defend Native American imagery

The sporting world has been abuzz recently with news the Washington NFL team is changing its name and logos to move away from their overt Native American imagery. Cleveland’s Major League Baseball team is considering a similar move. Looking at how the teams have defended their names in the past, we’ve identified a few lessons for employers that may be facing hostile work environment claims of their own.

How we got here

For many years, representative groups have petitioned the Washington and Cleveland sports teams to stop using their racial and cultural identities as mascots. The teams (and many of their supporters) have countered they are highlighting the groups’ virtues and achievements and that many group members favor their use. Until very recently, the Washington football team had adamantly resisted any change, with the owner stating on the record in 2013 that he would never change the team name. The Cleveland baseball club has been a bit more conciliatory, having recently retired its long-standing mascot that was an exaggerated caricature.

While the branding concerns of major sports franchises are unique, they are somewhat comparable to the issues ordinary employers might face if employees claim a hostile work environment arising from the use of racial or ethnic stereotypes in the workplace or their toleration by other workers. Since the complaints are similar, it’s instructive to review the defenses the team owners have offered in the past to defend their use of cultural imagery and whether they might be useful in opposing a hostile work environment claim.